get_session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: measured round-trip latency (~450 ms), group track arm state returning null, and a fallback probing strategy when Live reports zero tracks. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Survey' strongly implies non-mutating intent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized into Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence provides useful information: parameter meaning, return shape, performance characteristic, an edge case, and a fallback behavior. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without annotations, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: what the tool returns, how each parameter affects the call, a known edge case, and latency/fallback caveats. An output schema exists, so the return dictionary structure does not need to be spelled out here. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameters, and it does. It explains clips as 'Sweep Session slots for active clips', devices as including device chains per track, and max_scenes as the cap on scenes probed. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare boolean/integer schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Survey') with a clear resource ('the running set') and enumerates the components covered: script handshake, song fields, tracks, clips, devices. This makes it easy to distinguish from targeted siblings like get_track, get_clip, and get_devices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the usage context clear: call this when you need a session-wide snapshot including tracks, clips, devices, and script handshake state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the whole-session scope is evident from the first sentence and the Returns summary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.